peeves MAI IC 
NOTES AND MONOGRAPHS 


Numismatic Notes AND MonoGRAPHS 
is devoted to essays and treatises on sub- 
jects relating to coins, paper money, 
medals and decorations, and is uniform 
with Hispanic Notes and Monographs 
published by The Hispanic Society of 
America, and with Indian Notes and 
Monographs issued by the Museum of the 


American Indian—Heye Foundation. 


PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 


AGNES BALDWIN Brett, Chairman 
Henry RUSSELL DROWNE 
JouHN REILLy, Jr. 


EDITORIAL STAFF 


SyDNEY Puitip Nos, Editor 
Howtanp Woop, Associate Editor 
V. E. Earwe, Assistant 


Poe ie N J) ER 
BOAR D> 


ieee ORL SAR NA. 


BY 


EDWARD T. NEWELL 


THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY 
BROADWAY AT I560TH STREET 
NEW YORK 
1923 


COPYRIGHT, 


THE AMERICAN NU 


Pee eee RO AO ARDS 


THE ANDRITSAENA HOARD 
By Epwarp T. NEweELL 


This small but interesting hoard is 
stated to have been found near Andrit-| 
saena in the Peloponnesus and was of-| 
fered for sale by an Athenian antiquity 
dealer early in March of 1923. How 
long before this it had been found, we do 
not know. It was entirely due to the in- 
terest and active intervention of Mr. 
Sydney P. Noe, who chanced to be in 
Athens at the time, that the Philip and 
Alexander portion of the find was se- 
cured intact, as well as casts of many of 
the remaining Bceeotian, 7“ginetan, Sicy-| 
onian, and Olympian staters. 

No further particulars concerning the 
hoard, or the circumstances surrounding 
its discovery, are at present available. 
As it had passed through at least two 
hands before reaching the Athenian 
dealer, it was found impossible to secure 


Ne@eVigies Vere bl oN OT ES 


4 


ALEXAN D FE ReSe GSaeee 


any further information. All we can 
definitely state is that it was certainly 
found in the Peloponnesus and that all 
the specimens offered to and secured by 
the dealer have been seen. \W hetiter the 
find was originally larger is not definitely 
known, but the person from whom the 
dealer acquired his portion is said to 
have made the vague statement that he 
believed there were a few more pieces. 
None, however, were seen in Athens be- 
fore the end of May, 1923. As the con- 
tents of the hoard make a well rounded 


out whole, it is quite possible that we 
possess it in its entirety. At any rate, it 


is well worth publishing. 

As a whole, the coins in this hoard are 
exceedingly well preserved. Not only 
was their original owner apparently very 
particular with regard to the condition 
of the pieces which he added to his sav- 
ings, but time also has dealt kindly with 
the little treasure entrusted to its not 
always tender care. When found, the 
majority of our coins were but slightly 
oxidized, some not at all. This oxidiza- 


NUMISMA £2 CN Oe 


Peek le orA EN A 


tion has proved easily removable, as has 
also the fawn-colored earth or clay which 
originally encrusted all of the coins. 
With three exceptions, reserved for pos- 
sible future reference, all of the Philips 
and Alexanders have now been cleaned. | 
The weights of the Beeotian, A*ginetan, 
Sicyonian, and Olympian staters were 
not ascertained, but those of the remain- 
der are given below. | 


PHILIP II OF MACEDON, 359-336 B.c. 
MINT oF AMPHIPOLIS. 


I TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Laureate head of Zeus to r. 
Rev. ®JAINMMOY. . Youthful rider | 
wearing fillet and holding palm branch, 
on horseback to r. Beneath foreleg, 
ROSE. 

Miller, No. 75. VG. gr. 14.47. 

2 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and 
STERN. 

Miullere’No. 197. F. gr. 14.32. 

3 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 


Pee yeOeneOrG R A P°H'S 


ALEXANDER VO spe 


Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, BEE and 
DOUBLE HEAD. 

Miller, No. 2701. F. gr. 14.435. Plate I. 
4 TETRADRACHM. 

Similar to the preceding. 

F. gr. 34.38. 

5 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath horse, pouBLE 
HEAD. 

Miller, No. 269. VF. gr. 14.535. 

6 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, povu- 
BLE HEAD. 

Miller, No. 269. VG. gr. 14.375. 

7 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. Beneath foreleg, sTERN. 
Miller, No. 210. VG. gr. 14.22. 


Mint oF PELLA. 


8 TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. ®IAIMIMOY. The king in kausia 
and mantle, right hand raised, advanc- 
ing to 1. on horseback. Beneath horse, 


HM. 
Miller, No. 297. G. gr. 14.26. Plate I. 


NUMIS MAT Gai 


Pa NeDskRel tes AE NA 


g TETRADRACHM. 

Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Youthful horseman to r. as on 
No. 1. Beneath horse, THUNDERBOLT. 
In exergue, N. 

Miiller, No. 11. VG. gr. 14.33. Plate I. 


Posthumous issue of circa 325 B.C. 
10 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar, but of later style. 
Rev. Similar, but of later style. Be- 


neath horse, FLYING BEE. 


Variety of Miller, No. 191. VF. gr. 14.31. 
Plate I. 


ALEXANDER III OF MACEDON, 
336-323 B.C. 


Mint or AMPHIPOLIS. 


Group A, circa 336-334 B.C. 
1I-I2 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Head of young Heracles to r. 
Rev. AAEZANAPOY. Zeus etophor 
seated to 1. on throne. In front, PRow. 
Maller, No, 503: G. gr. 17.07. F. 17.09. 


Group B, circa 333 and 332 B.C. 
13 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, BUNCH OF 


GRAPES. 
Miller, No. 306. F. gr. 17.15. 


Ee fs eevOwN-OPG RUA PHS 


6 ALEX AN DE Ree eheee 


Group D, cirea 330 and 32018-6 
14 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cLusp and (5) 
Variety of Miller, No. 138. F. gr. 17.095. 
15 LTETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HORSE’S HEAD. 
Miller, No. 528. VF. gr. 17.145. 
16 ‘TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, DOLPHIN. 
Miller, No. 539: G, gr.917-2e: 
Group E, circa 328 and 327 B.c. 
17 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HERM. 
Miller, No. 366. VF. gr. 17.24. 
18 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cock. 
Miller, No. 392. VF. 16.945. 
Group F, circa 326 B.c. 
19 [TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, Bow and QUIVER. 
Miller, No. 591. VF. gr. 17.15. 
Group G, circa 325 B.C. 
20 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


NUMISMA TL Geese 


Peele Ast) NA 


Rev. Similar, but inscription: AAEZ- 
ANA—P—OYBASIAEQOS. In field, 
CORNUCOPIA. 
Miller, No. 368. VF. gr. 17.22. 
Group H, circa 324 and 323 B.c. 
21-22 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but inscription: BAXI- 
AEQS AAEZANAPOY. In field, PHRYG- 
IAN CAP. 
Miller e No. osa. VE, er. 17.21, 17.16. 
23 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, TRIPOD. 
Maller, No. 146. VF. gr. 17.20. 
Group J.wwee 322 and 321 P.c. 
24 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, "6 
Miller, No. 860. VF. gr. 17.125. Plate II. 
25-28 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, LQ 
Muller Nos 663, Ff. D,C. gr: 17.18, 17.20, 
ore 7. 
Group J, circa 320 and 319 B.C. 
29 [TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, EAR OF BARLEY. 


peveDae@ wd GR A PH 5S 


ALEXA N DIRS Oe .gn eee 


Beneath throne, TI. 
Miller, No. 570. F. Di CGrrpraizas, 
30 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, LAUREL SPRIG. 
Beneath throne, II. 
Miller, No. 560, F.1D. -C. grin7.10; 


31 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cRESCENT (up- 
right). Beneath throne, IT. 
Miller, No. 2614_F. DEG@iegrer7ccs: 


32 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. In field, cRESCENT (in- 
verted). Beneath throne, II. 


Variety of Muller, Ne. 26159) 205 Cer 
17.32. Plate II. 


MINT oF PELLA. 
Circa 336-320 B.C. 
33-35 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar, but of different style. 
Rev. Similar, but of different style. 
Beneath throne, ©. 
Miller, No. 197. WG: to Py erar7-1291 7-16 
17,19, 
36 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


NUM ISM AVG whe aia 


Paneer lies AE NA 


Rev. Similar. In field, AY 
Nitlers Now 702... C. gr. 17.32. 


Plate IT. 
37 [TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. No symbol. 
Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.195. 
38 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, sBu- 
CRANIUM. 

Muller, No. 98. VF. gr. 17.17. 
UNCERTAIN MINT IN MACEDONIA 
or THESSALY. 

39-40 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar to the preceding. 
Rev. Similar. In field, HELMET. Be- 
neath throne, AX. 
Muller o.1472.0 8. D.C. gr: 17.14, 37.195. 
MINT OF PHASELIS OR SIDE. 
41-53 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Head of fine style to r. 
Rev. AAEZANAPOY onr., BASIAEQOS 
in exergue. Zeus on high-back throne 
to 1. In field, wreatH. Beneath 
throne, AT. 


Mier Nom-c0. p..to F. DD: C. gr, 17.00; 
iePOta me Os mel tO e710 se 07.b2s 17.045 
Peet eer gO. T7155 17.225 17.25. 

Plate II. 


PevebeminOeN OGRA PH S 


10 ALEX A.N: DE Re ere aia 


54 [ETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, AT. 
Miller, No. 216. VBa or 17 aase 

55 LETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but with BASIAEQOS 
above. In field) Al” Bencathetitone: 


BS. 
Miller, No. 1483) “HP DAC erei 7-105: 


MinT oF TARSUS. 
Series |, circa 333-427528.¢6 
56 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Head of young Heracles of east- 


ern style. 
Rev. Zeus, of eastern style, i 
enthroned to 1. Below throne, A. 
Newell, Tarsos under Alexander, No. 6. 
VG? of) re 

57 [ETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, B. 
Newell, 1. c. (NO, 10. ine reaee 


MiInT oF SALAMIS. 
Series I, 332-320 B.c. 
58 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, pow. 


NUMISM A®T 1 CN Gea 


Ewer iet oo LN A 


Miller, No. 1287. (See also, Newell, Some 
Cypriote Alexanders, Num. Chron., 1915, 
No, 7.)) VGe er. 17.12. Plate III. 
MINT oF CITIUM. 
Series I, 332-320 B.c. 
59 [TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


Rev. Similar. In field, k 
Muller, No. 1294. (See also, Newell, /. c. 
Noss.) EH, et. 172045. Plate III. 


MInT oF MyRIANDRUS. 
Sericg atl, Caycea 320. B.C. 
60 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. BASTAROS (on 1, 
AAEZANAPO in exergue. In field, x 


Beneath throne, % 


Newell, Myriandros—Alexandria kat’ Isson, 
No. 20. F. gr. 16.98. 


Series III, circa 328-326 B.c. 
61 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but without the title, and 
with AAEZANAPOY on r. Same 
monograms. 
Newell, J. c. No. 22. F. gr. 17.035. 
Series IV, circa 326-323 B.C. 
62 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 


eee vie ON () GR A PH S 


12 


ALEXAN DE RSG te as. 


Rev. Similar. In field, qq over <% 
Beneath throne, m 


Newell, /. c. No. 28. VG. (not cleaned), gr. 
17.24. 


MINT oF ARADUS. 


63 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In exergue, BASIAEQS, 


onr., AAEZANAPOY. Beneath throne, 
A 


P 
Miller, No. 1360. VF. gr. 17.07. 


64-66 TETRADRACHMS. 


Obv, Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, 3. Beneath 


throne, 4 
Miller, No. 1364. F. and VF. gr. 17.03; 
17.1057 17.105: Plate ITI. 


67 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, SO. Beneath 
throne, 4 
Miller, No. 1363. F. gr. 17.23. 
Mint oF BYBLUs. 
Monogram of King Adramelek. 


68 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, style early. In field, A 
Miller, No. 1375. G. gr. 17.015. 


NUMIS MAW CNS Ose 


peek Say Ek NA 


69-71 TETRADRACHMS. 
Obv. Similar, but of later style. 
Rev. Similar, but of Muller’s style IV. | 
In field, A 


Aidticr eo. 1375. to F. D. C. gr. 17.095; 
17.1O*? 17.10. Plate III. 


MINT oF AKE. 
Series I, circa 332-328 B.c. 
72 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. Beneath throne, M. 


Newell, The Dated Alexander Coinage of 
Sidon and Ake, No: 2. VG. gr. 17.14. 


Series III, circa 326-320 B.c. 
73 LTETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Pessimilar. In field, {2 (year 
oe Circa 322B.C. ), 
NewellarcoNo- 18. VE. gr. 17.07. 
Plate IV. 


Mint oF BABYLON. 
Series II, circa 329-326 B.C. 
74 [TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Head of Heracles to r., of 
“Babylonian style.” 
Rev. Zeus enthroned to 1. Beneath 
throne, (y¥ and M. (Symbol origi- 


- nally in the exergue is “off flan.” ) 
Millers No.670. 1. gr: 17.20. 


Peveemev ON OGRA PHS 


14 


ALEX AN DIE Rr Or ster 


75 [TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. From same obverse die. 
Rev. Similar, but with back to throne. 
In field, THUNDERBOLT. Beneath throne, 


KY and M. 
Muller, No. 679. VG. gr. 17.12. 


176 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field) wreEATH. Same 


monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety not in Miller. VF. gr. 17.09. 


77 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar. In field, cANTHARUS. 


Same monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety not in Miller. F, D. C. gr. 17.18. 


78 ‘TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. In field, rosr. Same 
monogram and M beneath throne. 
Variety, not in Miller. VF. ger. 17.225. 


Series III, circa 326-324 B.c. 


79 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Similar. 

Rev. Similar. “In field) suncue or 
GRAPES and M. Same monogram be- 
neath throne. | 

Muller, No. 692. VF. gr. 17.155. 


N-UM US MA*T 1 Ce Nese 


Peek is AE N-A 


Series IV, circa 323-320 B.C. 
80 TETRADRACHM. 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but of more advanced 
style (Miller’s style IV). In field, M. 
Beneath throne, AY. 
MullersNo, 1272. VEL gr..17.115. 
81-82 TETRADRACHMS. 
In name of Philip Arrhidzus 
tet 3275.0, ). 
Obv. Similar. 
Rev. Similar, but inscribed, BASTAEQOS 
®IAINMOY. In field, M. Beneath 
throne, AY. 
Miller, No. 99. VF. gr. 17.09; 17.115. 
After 317 B.c. 
83 TETRADRACHM. 


Obv. Heracles’ head of fine style to r. 


Rev. Zeus enthroned tol. In exergue, 
BASIAEQOS; on r., AAEZANAPOY. 
In field, BAP in wreatH. Beneath 


throne, MI. 


Niner enone s4.0i. LW. C. gri.17.115. 
Plate IV. 


ANCIENT IMITATION OF THE 
ALEXANDER COINAGE. 

84 TETRADRACHM. 

‘| Obv. Head imitated from Babylonian 

issues. 


ReveoeevieO NO GRAPHS 


16 


85 STATER. 


AL E.XOA ND Baer eee 


Rev. Seated Zeus imitated from Cyp- 
riote or Phoenician issues. On rf., 


AAESZANA. Onl. ASBA..A. 
Not cleaned. VG. gr. 16.52. Plate IV. 


BQLOTIA. 
Period 379-338 B.C. 


Obv. Beeotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between AI—Q. 
Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 82. No. 134. Somewhat 
worn. 

86 STATER. 
Obv. Bceotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between KA—BI. 
Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 83. No. 154. “Somewhat 
worn. Plate V. 

Period 338-335 or later. 

SFT ATER 
Obv. Beeotian shield. 
Rev. Amphora between BO—IO. 
BUNCH OF GRAPES above. 


Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 36. No. 42. Somewhat 
worn. Plate V. 


JEGINA. 
Period 550-456 B.c. 
88-977 STATERS. 
Obv. Sea-turtle. 
Rev. Incuse square divided by bands 


NUMI1S\M AT pO ost. 


* 


Dawe Rat > A ENA 


into a conventional pattern of five 


compartments. 
Dimteussecats ©! xxiv, Nos. 1, 2. All 
very much worn. 
Period 404-350 B.c., or later. 
98-105 STATERS. 
Obv. Land-tortoise (ftestudo gr@ca). 


Rev. Incuse square divided by bands} 
into a conventional pattern of five) 


compartments. 


Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. xxiv, Nos. 10-12. F.-VF.| 


Plate V. 

At least three and probably more of 
these eight staters, all in the finest con- 
dition, were of the later type with nar- 


row bands, spread fabric, and _ tortoise} 


of later style. 


SIGY ON: 
Period 400-300 B.c. 


106 STATER. 
Obv. Chimera to 1. Beneath, 3E. 
Rev. Dove-flying to 1. in wreath. 


Brit. Mus. Cat. Pl. vii. No. 17. Somewhat | 


worn. 
107 STATER. 
Obv, Chimera to r._ Beneath, SI. 


Rev. Dove flying to r. in erty 
Somewhat worn. Plate V. 


Pereve veg NO GRAPHS 


ALEX AND ERs ei Oe oe 


ELIS. {OLYMPIAD 
Period 421-365 B.c. 
108 STATER. 
Obv. On boss of a round shield, eagle 
to 1. devouring serpent. 


Rev. Thunderbolt between F—A. 
Seltman, Nos. 162-6 (die BV). Much worn 


and covered with punchmarks. 
Period 343-323 B.C. 

109 STATER. 
Obv. Laureate head of) Zeusiton: 
Rev. Eagle standing to r. on lonic 
capital. In field, THUNDERBOLT and 
SERPENT. 
Seltman, Nos. 207-12 (die CT). Somewhat 
worn. 

Period 363-323 B.c., or later. 

L10) STAT ER 
Obv. Head of Hera toerwearme 
stephanos inscribed FAAEION. In 
field, Fa aay 
Rev. Eagle standing to 1., head to r. 
and wings spread. The whole in olive 
wreath. . 


Seltman, No. 344 (dies FG-i). VF. 
Plate V. 


One of the principal reasons impelling 
the writer to publish this little find (be- 


N UMIS M ACh? Clee 


Pave RE rSAENA 


fore other more important ones) is that, 
small though it is, it furnishes a very 
typical specimen of the kind of hoards} 
buried in Hellas during the last quarter'| 
of the fourth century B.c. The usual| 
contents of such deposits may be sum- 
marized briefly as follows: a large pro-| 
portion of Alexander’s tetradrachms in| 
which Macedonian issues predominate ;} 
a smaller but not at all negligible num- 
ber of the issues (both contemporaneous| 
and posthumous) of Philip II; and,| 
finally, a scattering number of such local} 
and autonomous issues as were still being' 
struck in the larger cities or were still] 
generally current—though their original| 
mints had been closed. Furthermore,| 
from the standpoint of the Alexander 
series, the Andritsaena hoard is interest-| 
ing as representing the Greek counter-| 
part, in everything but size, of the great! 
Egyptian find of Demanhur. With one 
important exception all of its varieties 
are to be found in the Demanhur deposit. 
And this one exception, No. 83, enables 
us to place the probable burial date of 


Pee NO GRA PHS 


20 


ALEXAN DE Reet Oakes 


the Andritsaena hoard within rather 


narrow limits. 

It is to be noticed that not one of our 
Alexander coins was struck after the 
death of Philip Arrhideus, excepting 
only No. 83. Now this piece represents 
the first issue immediately following the 
series current in Babylon at the time of 
his death.? With them this coin is closely 
bound by great similarity of detail, style, 
and fabric. As these very soon change, 
it must have been struck early in the 
course of the new issue. It cannot 
therefore have appeared much after the 


|commencement of 316 B.c., for Philip 


was assassinated early in November of 
317 B.c.4 This hoard cannot, then, have 
been buried earlier than the year 316. 
As this particular Babylonian coin is in 
such perfect condition it could have seen 
but little, if any, circulation. In our cal- 
culations, however, we must allow a cer- 
tain time for its long journey from the 
plains of Babylonia to the mountains of 
the western Peloponnesus. This will of 
necessity bring us to the end of 316, or 


NUMISMA TT Ci. 


PaeNettlel > AE NA 


even well into the year 315 B.c. as the 


only possible date at which the Andrit- 
saena hoard could have been buried. The 
total absence of so many very common 
coins struck in the last years of Philip 
Arrhidzus or in the first years of Alex- 
ander IV forbids setting the burial at 
a later date. This is further corrobo- 
rated by the uniformly brilliant condi- 
tion exhibited by all the coins in the 
hoard which date after about 320 B.c. 
Thus, on the sole evidence of the coins 
in this find, we seem amply justified in 
fixing on the year 315 B.c. as the prob- 
able time at which they were buried. 
And this date would seem to fit 
in remarkably well with certain polit- 
ical events which took place in the 
Peloponnesus at this time, and which 
might have induced the former owner 
of our hoard to consign it to Mother 
Earth. We know that after the success- 
ful conclusion of Antigonus’ campaigns 
against Eumenes in the east, he moved 
his army from Babylon to Cilicia, where 
he went into winter quarters. This was 


Peeoee NO GRAPHS 


ALEX AWN DoE Reger Oe ane 


in the late autunmoti21008 ce ete 
time he found himself threatened by a 
powerful coalition of the remaining sa- 
traps, Cassander of Macedon, Lysi- 
machus of Thrace, Assander of Caria, 
and Ptolemy of Egypt. To hold Cas- 
sander in check while he settled with 
the remainder, Antigonus now sent his 
trusted friend, Aristodemus of Miletus, 
with one thousand talents to the Pelo- 
ponnesus with instructions to raise an 
army of mercenaries and, especially, to 
win Polysperchon for his cause. The 
latter had, since 318 B.c., been waging 
desperate warfare against Cassander, 
and now found himself in the possession 
of a large portion of the Peloponnesus. 
By the beginning of 315 B.c., Aristode- 
mus had accomplished all his objects and, 
together with Polysperchon, was at the 
head of a considerable army. 

In the meanwhile Apollonides, Cas- 
sander’s general stationed in Argos, had 
been able to hold his own until his mas- 
ter’s arrival, and even to seize the town 
of Stymphalus. Having recruited a 


NUMIS MAT 1 GOs ieee 


Pee iets A BNA 23 


fresh army in Macedonia, Cassander, in 
the spring of 315 B.c., marched south 
through Thessaly and Bceotia, secured 
Corinth’s harbor Kenchree,® and pushed 
on into Arcadia. He seized Orcho- 
menus and staged an ambitious raid over 
into Messenia. As, however, he found 
the city of Messene too strongly held by 
Polysperchon to warrant an attempt at 
assault, he returned to Arcadia. Leav- 
ing Damis as military commander of 
the district, Cassander went to Argos 
and celebrated here the Nemean Games. 
These are reckoned by Droysen® to have 
been held in the first year of the 116th 
Olympiad, or August of 315 B.c. Soon 
after he returned with his army to Mace- 
donia, Cassander’s opponents, immedi- 
ately improving upon this opportunity, 
again overran all the Peloponnesus, 
chased the garrisons from town after 
town, and soon were in undisturbed pos- 
session of practically all of the peninsula. 

Thus ended the campaign of 315 B.c. 
Although the fighting was resumed with 
the spring of 314, it was principally con- 


Peo eave NOG R*A PH S 


ALEXAN DERI oe eae 


fined to northwestern Elis (about Kyl- 
lene) and to the province of Achaia, 
leaving the district about modern An- 
dritsaena quite untouched. This state of 
affairs, so far as we can gather from our 
ancient sources, also held true for the 
ensuing years. In other words, it would 
appear that only in 315 B.c. was the 
country, within a radius of twenty miles 
of Andritsaena, disturbed by actually 
contending armies so that life and prop- 
erty would not be safe.” At that time 
the hills about Andritsaena lay but a 
little to one side of Cassander’s direct 
route from Orchomenus to Messene. He 
would probably at least have sent raid- 
ing parties into the hills during his ad- 
vance southwards, if only to protect his 
flank, as well as his line of supplies and 
retreat, against any sudden attack. Cas- 
sander’s campaign appears to have been 
merely a tour de force, in the course of 
which he held only the places actually 
occupied by his soldiers. All the re- 
maining portions of the Peloponnesus 
and all but a few of the large cities (such 


NUMISMA Tt Gee Oeie 


Pewee oO AE NA 


as Argos, Stymphalus, Orchomenus, and 
possibly Epidaurus) were in the hands 
of Polysperchon, his son, Alexander, 
Aristodemus, and their allies. The latter, 
however, did not once dare to meet Cas- 
sander’s veteran forces in open battle, 
but contented themselves with holding 
the walled cities, and undoubtedly the 
mountains to either side of his advancing 
forces. Guerilla warfare was apparently 
thesqrder=01 the day. 

No wonder then that in such troublous 
times, and well within the zone of active 
operations, the former owner of our 
hoard decided to place his savings in as 
safe a place as possible. Why he was 
never able to remove them later is, of 
course, open to many conjectures. To 
attempt a solution would be futile. 

With the sole exception of No. 83, the 
Philip and Alexander coins in the An- 
dritsaena hoard call for but little com- 
ment. The issues of Amphipolis, the 
largest of all the Alexander mints, out- 
number those of any other one mint, as 
is only natural for a hoard found in a 


Seen NOG RA PHS 


26 


ALEX AN DE RWAE On share 


country enjoying close and constant 
communications with Macedonia. This 
was even the case with such a distant 
hoard as that of Demanhur (q. v.). On 
the other hand it is interesting to ob- 
serve that, if taken together, the Asiatic 
Alexander issues by far outnumber (43 
as against 30) the European ones. This is 
not usually the case with hoards found 
in Europe and dating from the last quar- 
ter of the. fourth century ac. seme. 
case, however, there may be an easy 
solution. It will be remembered that in 
316 B.c., or just the year before the prob- 
able burial date of our hoard, Aristo- 
demus was sent by Antigonus to the 
Peloponnesus with a thousand talents 
with which to raise troops. Again, 
early in 315 B.c., Diodorus states! that 
Polysperchon’s son, Alexander, returned 
from a short visit to Antigonus in Cilicia 
with a further sum of five hundred tal- 
ents. These huge sums were undoubtedly 
in the form of coined money. There 
were no facilities in the southern Pelo- 
ponnesus to convert so much bullion into 


NUMIS™ APP Rae 


PNR tl SAE NA 


ready money, and the all-important time 
was lacking. It would obviously have 
been far more expedient for Antigonus 
merely to turn over already coined money 
furnished him by the many active mints 
at his command in the east. Further- 
more, we may gather from Diodorus" 
that his recent successful campaigns in 
the east had been most lucrative. 
Antigonus at this time was assembling 
a great army in Cilicia for the coming 
expedition against Syria and Egypt. For 
this purpose he had probably seen to it 
that the satrapal coffers should be well 
filled with the “sinews of war” in an 
immediately available form. Any coins 
Aristodemus, and later, Alexander, had 
brought with them from Asia would soon 
be certain to find their way through- 
out the length and breadth of the south- 
ern Peloponnesus. The newly hired 
soldiers would be only too ready to spend 
the first instalments of their pay. Their 
commanders, because of political condi- 
tions, had only the immediately surround- 
ing countryside from which to draw their 


Pewee OmN GRAPHS 


‘ 


27 


28 ALEXANDE RS@EOy ore 


supplies. These would probably not be 
all commandeered. In a poor country like 
this, Polysperchon and his allies had to 
depend too much upon the good-will of 
the inhabitants—ever ready to welcome 
a change—to risk not paying for at least 
some of the supplies requisitioned for 
the support of their armies. Thus, very 
soon, probably a considerable number 
of Alexander coins from eastern mints 
was in circulation among the people of 
Messenia, Laconia, southern Elis, and 
southern Arcadia. It is possible, also, 
that many of the earlier eastern issues 
had already found their way to the Pelo- 
ponnesus (as to the rest of Hellas) in 
the hands of returning veterans from 
Alexander’s armies. 

Provided that we really have the en- 
tire find before us, it is curious, to say 
the least, to note the entire absence of 
any of those Alexandrine issues which 
were first assigned to a mint at Sicyon 
by M. Babelon.12 The very same phe- 
nomenon is also observable in the Kypa- 
rissia hoard.18 Of course, in such’ small 


NUMISMA{ Ta Gao 


Paha SAE N A 


hoards chance must needs play a very 
large part and too much stress must not 
be laid upon the absence of any one 
variety, particularly if it be at all scarce. 

To the best of the writer’s knowledge 
the Andritsaena hoard, in point of date, 
is the earliest (of which we have record) 
in which posthumous issues of Philip II 
(No. 10, Plate I) make an appearance. 
Later these coins become quite common, 
aseneiaies wecara, lamia, and other 
Grecian hoards which it is hoped will 
be published eventually. ° 

As shown above by the catalogue, in- 
cluded in this find was also an ancient 
forgery of the Alexander tetradrachm 
(No. 84, Plate IV). The nature of the 
coin is indicated by its blundered legends, 
the dryness of the style, and the fact 
that its obverse is imitated from genu- 
ine Babylonian issues, while its reverse 
copies certain early Phcenician or Cyp- 
riote Alexanders. Furthermore, it is 
the only coin in the hoard which, in 
addition to the purple oxide and yellow- 
ish dirt which it bears in common with 


Peeve Oe NOG R-A.P HS 


ALE X AN Dito ere 


the remaining coins of the find, is also 
encrusted with thick patches of verdigris. 
This is a phenomenon frequently ob- 
served by the writer in certain hoards 
which have contained both ancient for- 
geries and genuine issues. Almost invari- 
ably these imitations of the period will 
be encrusted with spots of verdigris not 
shown by any of the genuine pieces. 
This is undoubtedly due to the poorer 
quality of the silver of which the for- 
geries are made, the larger amount of 
copper in their alloy brought to the sur- 
face by decomposition, and other chem- 
ical changes which have taken place 
during the long period in which they 
have lain buried underground. The 
accompanying genuine coins, having but 
little, if any, copper in the composition 
of their metal, will only show the usual 
forms of decomposition customary for 
pure silver. 

In view of the Peloponnesian origin 
of our find, it is but natural that coins 
of A*gina, Sicyon, and Elis should have 
formed the greater portion of the auton- 


NUMIS MA TUG] ke Ose. 


Peet SAE N A 


omous coinages which it contained. It 


is noticeable, as was also the case with 
the Kyparissia hoard, that Athenian 
tetradrachms and Corinthian staters are 
both absent. The Beeotian, Sicyonian, 
and Olympian issues call for no special 
remarks. They are precisely what one 
would have expected to occur in a hoard 
of this date and place. 

The A*ginetan staters, Nos. 98-105, on 
the other hand, would seem to raise a 
question of dating. It will be noticed 
that they are of the Testudo Greca 
(land-tortoise) type and belong to the 
anepigraphic series, now assigned by 
scholars to the years immediately follow- 
ing the Aginetan restoration of 404 B.c.14 
At least three in our find are of the late, 
spread-fabric type with thin (instead of 
thick) bands dividing the incuse of their 
Teverses, il the specimens are in fine 
condition and could have seen but little 
circulation. On the other hand, not one 
of the inscribed varieties, bearing A, AT, 
Alo eAltlaturmed up.- These are 
supposed to have been struck during the 


PehwueeiiOun ODO GRA PHS 


31 


32 


ALEX AN D ERS Oeer sles 


years immediately preceding 348 B.c. It 
is curious that these should be missing 
when the supposedly much earlier series 
was present not only in goodly numbers 
but also in such fine condition. It would 
seem as if the latter (the uninscribed, 
thin-banded, and spread-fabric type) had 
been struck but recently, and not at the 
very commencement of the century. 
The writer might not have paid any 


particular attention to this curious anom- 


aly—in hoards so much is due to mere 
chance—had it not been for the consid- 


eration that another little hoard (or 


portion of a hoard), brought to his at- 
tention in 1921, presented the very same 
feature. That lot consisted of six Philip 
II tetradrachms (Muller, Nos. 158, 252, 
263, two specimens of 269, 270) ; four- 
teen Alexander tetradrachms (Muller, 
Nos. 3, 216, 392, two specimens of 550, 
var. of 567, 684, 697, var. 704, 853, 860, 
var. 1302, var. 1342, 1472 )eeandetaree 
Afginetan staters in fine condition and 
all of the 404-350 B.c. type occurring in 
the Andritsaena find. Here, too, in- 


NUMISMA TDG ose 


Pee be EEN A 


scribed A‘ ginetan staters are noticeable 
by their absence. 

The reader will forgive a slight di- 
gression to allow the discussion of this 
second “find.” <A selection of four typ- 
ical specimens is given on Plate VI. The 
coins themselves were shown to the 
writer in November, 1921, by Mr. A. H. 
Baldwin of London. According to the 
latter’s statement, there could be no ques- 
tion but that these twenty-three coins 
had really been found together. When 
first offered for sale they had all been 
covered with an identical type of patina 
which, as was also the case with the 
Andritsaena coins, proved easily remov- 
able, so that the coins to-day have almost 
the appearance of having been freshly 
minted. Mr. Baldwin further stated that 
the lot had been brought in to him but 
a short time before by a Greek, a native 
of the little Peloponnesian city of “Tai- 
poli” (undoubtedly Tripolis, also known 
as Tripolitsa), who informed him that 
the coins had only recently been found 
“in that neighborhood.” 


Pevaoee vO N-OoG RA PHS 


34 


ALEX AND E RaSh Oe Rss 


The astonishing similarity in content 
of this “Tripolitsa” find with what has 
come to us of the Andritsaena hoard is 
at once manifest and at least suggests 
the possibility of a common origin. The 
Alexander issues in both cover exactly 
the same general period and show the 
same proportion of European to Asiatic 
issues. As against the 30 European and 
43 Asiatic Alexanders of the Andrit- 
saena lot, compare the 5 European and 
7 Asiatic in the “Tripolitsa”—the pro- 
portion is practically identical. Both 
hoards contained, in addition, a propor- 
tionate number of Philip’s coins and 
/Eginetan staters. The average condi- 
tion of wear exhibited by the coins in 
the two lots is also absolutely identical. 
Furthermore, Tripolitsa, one of the larg- 
est towns in the Peloponnesus and the 
chef heu of Arcadia, is more or less di- 
rectly connected with Andritsaena by 
carriage road via Megalopolis and Kary- 
taena, so that it would not be so very 
surprising for coins found in the neigh- 
borhood of Andritsaena to turn up in 


NUMIS M 4°. [Geet oeeees 


Peek AE N A 


Tripolitsa. It is curious, of course, but 
not entirely without precedent, that so 
long a time should have elapsed between 
the appearance on the market of the two 
lots. In February of 1922, the writer 
visited Athens and made many inquiries 
concerning a possible hoard of Alexan- 
der’s coins supposedly recently found in 
the Peloponnesus. On the last day of 
his stay in Athens a certain dealer!® came 
to him stating that he had just received 
word concerning a lot of about a hundred 
Alexanders from a recent find—but the 
writer could not -ascertain where the 
find had been made, nor could he delay 
his departure for the somewhat remote 
possibility of eventually being able to 
secure the “find.” Whether this lot had 
anything to do with the Andritsaena 
pieces which arrived in Athens a year 
later, is certainly not at present suscep- 
tible of proof. So much for the “Tripo- 
litsa” find. For the time-being nothing 
more definite can be said concerning its 
origin, but in studying the Andritsaena 
hoard we must not lose sight of the cir- 


Pe meV OeN Oty RA Pe S 


35 


36 


ALEXAN D ER SiOz he 


cumstance that the “Tripolitsa” lot may 
also originally have belonged to it. 
The apparent absence of any inscribed 
7Eginetan staters in the two lots de- 
scribed above is brought into yet 
stronger relief by a large hoard of an 
entirely different character. The writer 
refers to the great hoard of 1596 Bceo- 
tian, Sicyonian, and A®ginetan coins 
found in 1914 in Thessaly and now in 
the Athens National Collection.1® This 
remarkable find contained 1078 Bceotian 
staters from the earliest periods right 
down to, and including, coins of the period 
338-315 B.c. Because of the compara- 
tively large number of this latter class 
contained in the find, it must have been 
buried well after the year 338 B.c. Of 
the accompanying 325 A*ginetan staters, 
234 bore the sea-turtle as type, and so 
belong to the sixth and fifth centuries 
B.c. The remaining 90 specimens have the 
land-tortoise (testudo greca) and belong 
to the fourth century. Again it is to 
be noted that they include not a single 
specimen of the type bearing the inscrip- 


NUMISM Att Gen Ge. 


Peewee ls A EON A 


tions A, AI, AIT, or AITI. This fact is 
all the more noteworthy as the find 
was a large one, and thus the element 
of chance is almost entirely eliminated. 
Can it be that the minting of silver sta- 
ters at A*gina did not really come to an 
end with the year 348 B.c.,17 but was 
again undertaken at a slightly later date 
and under the ezgis of Macedon? 

Any detailed discussion, or any ten- 
tative rearrangement of the A*ginetan 
series, would be out of place here. That 
must be left for others to accomplish. 


Leaving aside the moot question of the 
real date of the inscribed A‘ginetan 
staters, the little Andritsaena hoard has 
at least sustained the assignment by Fox 
of the land-tortoise type to the fourth 
century. 


pa eee vero NOG RA PHS 


Pirate IT 


ANDRITSAENA 


ANDRITSAENA Prate III 


ANDRITSAENA PRP G 


ANDRITSAENA PLATE V 


eS 


ANDRITSAENA Prara Vi 


